Thread: 223 on deer

Ok thanks Tahr. Ive got my rifle now if you would like a photo

Originally Posted by tac a1

Ok thanks Tahr. Ive got my rifle now if you would like a photo

Yes

Shot this hind last night. 398 yds. 69gn tmk. Smashed it.

That's stretching it, good shooting.

Originally Posted by Kiwikev

That's stretching it, good shooting.

Yes it was. To be fair conditions were perfect and the rest was rock solid.

We shot two other deer a hind at 180 yds and a stag at 270 yds. All 3 took a few steps after being hit then went legs up. I find the 69gn TMK awesome killers. The only reason I don’t use 77gns or bigger is I need the speed out of my short barrel. I chopped mine to 16” and need lighter bullets for speed. I’m getting 2940fps with a compressed load of 2206H. I think that is around the limit range wise for this rifle. I have others that are better suited.

Another with 69 grn Targex a few days ago. 115 yards. Did a little .223 stagger and tipped over.

While doing research on another calibre (6.5x55, 160 gr round nose soft point), I came across this Kiwi website that has a lot to say about the .223 as a hunting round. The page briefly recounts the history of the calibre, discusses its performance, compares factory and handloads, and then makes a few concluding remarks. One of the author's performance observations is: "Apart from the use of FMJ ammunition, hunters using the .223 on medium game will achieve best results with neck and head shots. Typical sporting loads with conventional soft point ammunition can penetrate through the chest walls of medium game but kills are always slow if the CNS is not destroyed. The .223 does not have the power to initiate hydrostatic shock."

I'm not capable of determining the accuracy of the author's remarks but wonder whether those of you who do have such a skill set would agree or disagree with his observations?

Originally Posted by NoMis

I'm not capable of determining the accuracy of the author's remarks but wonder whether those of you who do have such a skill set would agree or disagree with his observations?

All he's saying is that you've gotta be on the money to ensure a fast kill. Which is pretty obvious to anyone who chooses to take a .223 Rem over a .308 Win, for example.

The "always slow" part is outdared - try a 69gr or 77gr TMK into the lungs and see how slow "slow" is. Ditto the old 75gr A-Max I used to use. My old school 70gr Speer semi-spitzers will make a red hind stagger and fall over in short order.

It's important to remember that Nathan Foster is a magnum cartridge long range man. Not really that inclined towards the small calibre precision business.

and also important to realise that article was written BEFORE the 1;8 twists and heavier than 64grn projectiles were in common usage..MOST folk using a .223 were still using 55grn soft points.
agree 100% flyblown.... you got to place your shots,that hasnt changed...you have more margin for error now..but that will never change.it is after all a tiny bit of metal going fast to take down a big hunk of animal.

Hi NoMis,good practice for you is to shoot a 100 or so rabbits at 200yds first.Then youl have no problem shoot deer in the right place.

Originally Posted by NoMis

While doing research on another calibre (6.5x55, 160 gr round nose soft point), I came across this Kiwi website that has a lot to say about the .223 as a hunting round. The page briefly recounts the history of the calibre, discusses its performance, compares factory and handloads, and then makes a few concluding remarks. One of the author's performance observations is: "Apart from the use of FMJ ammunition, hunters using the .223 on medium game will achieve best results with neck and head shots. Typical sporting loads with conventional soft point ammunition can penetrate through the chest walls of medium game but kills are always slow if the CNS is not destroyed. The .223 does not have the power to initiate hydrostatic shock."

I'm not capable of determining the accuracy of the author's remarks but wonder whether those of you who do have such a skill set would agree or disagree with his observations?

My first large game riffle was the 7mm rem mag and I thought it was the only calibre to use on deer until I started reading posts from champion hunters like Tahr.

After the endless kills posted I decided why not try this myself? So I bought a 223 and reloaded 62gr -80gr projectiles and have shot numerous deer since.

My conclusion is the 7mm rem mag can stay in the safe and I will happily use my 223 on all game, 7mm rem mag will only come out if I know I'm going to be shooting over 300 meters.

Originally Posted by NoMis

While doing research on another calibre (6.5x55, 160 gr round nose soft point), I came across this Kiwi website that has a lot to say about the .223 as a hunting round. The page briefly recounts the history of the calibre, discusses its performance, compares factory and handloads, and then makes a few concluding remarks. One of the author's performance observations is: "Apart from the use of FMJ ammunition, hunters using the .223 on medium game will achieve best results with neck and head shots. Typical sporting loads with conventional soft point ammunition can penetrate through the chest walls of medium game but kills are always slow if the CNS is not destroyed. The .223 does not have the power to initiate hydrostatic shock."

I'm not capable of determining the accuracy of the author's remarks but wonder whether those of you who do have such a skill set would agree or disagree with his observations?

I would call Nathan Foster One of the most knowledgeable people worldwide on the subject of terminal ballistics. I own several of his book, the most recent one he wrote on the subject does cover the more modern heavy projectiles for the .223. He speaks quite highly of the the likes of the Hornady ELDM and the Sierra TMK's. He tends to recommend the Match grade projectiles for longer ranges because they tend to expand better than some of the heavier jacketed projectiles like the Barnes Tripleshock intended for game shooting.
His writings on Long range shooting and bullet performance on game are great reads, I recommend them for both seasoned hunters and newbies.

Originally Posted by zeropak

I would call Nathan Foster One of the most knowledgeable people worldwide on the subject of terminal ballistics. I own several of his book, the most recent one he wrote on the subject does cover the more modern heavy projectiles for the .223. He speaks quite highly of the the likes of the Hornady ELDM and the Sierra TMK's. He tends to recommend the Match grade projectiles for longer ranges because they tend to expand better than some of the heavier jacketed projectiles like the Barnes Tripleshock intended for game shooting.
His writings on Long range shooting and bullet performance on game are great reads, I recommend them for both seasoned hunters and newbies.

I have the opposite opinion

He learned everything he could by reading forums and ringing everyone to pick their brains

His motivator to create a latent income from his website

Verbose generalisations do not an expert make

There are some very humble hunters and shooters in NZ that are light years ahead in actual experience and technical capability, They’re just not inebriated with the exuberance of their own verbosity

I find it amusing that this thread is 84 pages of dead deer shot with the .223. Yet every 8-10 pages we have to have an opinion piece quoting a local expert to the contrary. The .223 is my go to now. Why ? It’s accurate, quiet and deadly. The last 20 odd deer we’ve shot have been killed cleanly at various ranges. That’s fact and experience- not ballistic theories.

Both when shooting a .223 at an animal and considering Mr Fosters' writings you need to take a big breath. It will ensure accuracy.